I'm thinking of abandoning Bernie

[quadraginta]

<snip>

stupid "principles"

<snip>

Your characterization. Not mine. I neither said nor implied anything of the sort.

Please do not attempt to put your words in my mouth.

 

[Tony Stark]

Your characterization. Not mine. I neither said nor implied anything of the sort.

Please do not attempt to put your words in my mouth.

You're the one that is putting words in my mouth by pretending that I was trying to put words in your mouth.

 

[Trakar]

The millions who voted Republican were likely always going to vote Republican anyway, regardless of the candidates. So they aren't a useful part of the equation.

The millions who didn't vote were likely not going to vote anyway, regardless of the candidates. So they aren't a useful part of the equation.

Without a Nader on the ticket it is probable that those votes would have gone to Gore (or to no one at all), as the average Nader supporter is unlikely to be able to stomach voting for a Republican.

In view of the closeness of the election I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that he lost the election for Gore.

There was never a snowball's chance in hell Nader was going to win.

Lost votes. Lost Gore votes

Nader voters had an even less likely probability of voting for Gore than I do of voting for Hillary. After all, I did vote for Hillary in 2008 rather than Obama in the Democratic primary, at that time she more clearly and definitively seemed to be to the left of Obama (if you listened to her words rather than looked at her actions). This façade fell apart when she lost the primary and then was bull-horned when she became SoS.

 

[Travis]

But I'm not interested in persuading anyone to vote for Hillary, or Republicans. I think you should stay true to Bernie Sanders. Embrace the radiance of his love and wisdom! Do not be seduced by the easy path of the Clinton side!

I liked Hillary first. Bernie came along and said some things I liked. I don't agree with him on many things but on some things I do. He advocates for a slightly higher minimum wage than Hillary. But that stands in contrast to the GOP field who don't even believe there should be a minimum wage.

Anyways, I never saw them as too far apart and I always liked Hillary more on issues like foreign policy. So it isn't a matter of me being seduced back or anything like that. I've always been on the fence with them and it could be a coin flip. I was going to vote Bernie in the primary but resolved to vote Hillary if she got the nomination.

No one has yet convinced me that she is so much worse than him on the issues I most care about.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Getting a little defensive?

This has nothing to do with faith in one candidate or another. This is so simple I struggle to understand why you and the others don't get it.

Some of us have tried to understand the logic of not voting for the "lessor of two evils". Since one of them will be elected, what on earth would possess someone to allow the greater evil to win? Maybe you have a good reply, if so you'd be the first. Prior attempts have mimic'd the popular attempt by Republicans to claim equivalence when little exists for uncomfortable issues.

It's not that I "don't get it", it's that I don't agree. The lesser of two evils is still evil. If one has a principle about not furthering evil, one cannot further evil--even if there's a worse evil around the place. If you're given a choice between murdering someone and maiming them, would you set to chopping their hands off while congratulating yourself on your excellent moral choice? The principled option there is to refuse to make a choice, even if that upsets the pragmatists who believe everything is a numbers game.

 

[Mike!]

Apparently voting their principles matter more to them than how their votes will affect reality. Absolutely insane if you ask me. Similarly, I have spoken to many "conservatives" who will sit out the election if Marco Rubio or another "RINO" gets the nomination. Though I didn't bother explaining to them that he is much more conservative than Hillary is and that it would be highly irrational of them to not vote for him if they want the country to move to the right.

And you have no principles. That explains a great deal. Thanks for clarifying that for everyone.

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

In view of the closeness of the election I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that he lost the election for Gore.

There was never a snowball's chance in hell Nader was going to win.

Lost votes. Lost Gore votes

Yes, Nader probably cost Gore the election, but Nader's supporters sure didn't. From the perspective of an individual voter trying to make a difference, casting a vote for the candidate you truly want to win is usually more important and more effective than casting a vote for the lesser of two evils. The probability that your preferred candidate will win due to your vote may or may not be less than the probability that the lesser of two evils will lose due to your vote, but the impact on the political system of giving an obscure or long shot candidate an additional vote can be much greater than giving the lesser of two evils an extra vote.

I actually made this argument to one of the Managing Directors of my firm back in 2000 (a libertarian) and convinced him to vote for Harry Browne rather than George Bush. An extra vote for a fringe libertarian candidate was more meaningful than an extra vote for a business-as-usual Republican I argued. I did the same thing. Strangely enough, neither of our votes actually affected the election.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yeah, I'm such a notorious conservative, what my preference for Bernie Sanders and all.

Proving that one need not be conservative to buy into conservative lies like "both sides do it."

 

[thaiboxerken]

Here is the statement Gore issued in 2002, in sharp opposition to the Iraq war.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html

Stop making stuff up folks.

If lies couldn't be used in political discussions, the conservatives would never win.

 

[Trakar]

Yes, Nader probably cost Gore the election, but Nader's supporters sure didn't. From the perspective of an individual voter trying to make a difference, casting a vote for the candidate you truly want to win is usually more important and more effective than casting a vote for the lesser of two evils. The probability that your preferred candidate will win due to your vote may or may not be less than the probability that the lesser of two evils will lose due to your vote, but the impact on the political system of giving an obscure or long shot candidate an additional vote can be much greater than giving the lesser of two evils an extra vote.

I actually made this argument to one of the Managing Directors of my firm back in 2000 (a libertarian) and convinced him to vote for Harry Browne rather than George Bush. An extra vote for a fringe libertarian candidate was more meaningful than an extra vote for a business-as-usual Republican I argued. I did the same thing. Strangely enough, neither of our votes actually affected the election.

When a party sees that there is a considerable block of votes that they feel like they should be capturing but aren't (especially when an election is close), they begin making efforts to be more inclusive of that constituencies concerns. It is the nature of the beast. Especially when this constituency begins impacting down-ticket elections sufficiently to actually put representatives in place throughout the body politic.

Real progressives (originally a Republican constituency) have been building and adding Democratic representatives increasingly for a long time, unfortunately the slow poison of establishment money corrupts nearly as many representatives as ideology inspires to the cause.

Over the last couple of decades, we've been gaining more than we're losing.

 

[DavidJames]

It's not that I "don't get it", it's that I don't agree. The lesser of two evils is still evil. If one has a principle about not furthering evil, one cannot further evil--even if there's a worse evil around the place. If you're given a choice between murdering someone and maiming them, would you set to chopping their hands off while congratulating yourself on your excellent moral choice? The principled option there is to refuse to make a choice, even if that upsets the pragmatists who believe everything is a numbers game.

Sorry that's narcissistic, head in the sand ignorance. Your example is skewed to support your opinion. So far no one with your view has honestly addressed the realistic difference in the "evils".

I'm done trying to convince self centered "skeptics" who refuse to acknowledge reality. When Cruz or Trump win and stock the supreme court with more Scalia's and Thomas's and RvW gets over turned, gay marriage gets over turned, etc etc. You guys can smugly feel good while everyone suffers the consequence of your ignorance.

 

[varwoche]

It's not that I "don't get it", it's that I don't agree. The lesser of two evils is still evil. If one has a principle about not furthering evil, one cannot further evil--even if there's a worse evil around the place. If you're given a choice between murdering someone and maiming them, would you set to chopping their hands off while congratulating yourself on your excellent moral choice? The principled option there is to refuse to make a choice, even if that upsets the pragmatists who believe everything is a numbers game.

With this binary outlook, how does one tell the evil from the righteous? Black/white hats?

But seriously, in terms of LGBT rights -- the issue you pointed to if I interpret correctly -- how is Sanders any better than Clinton? They both "evolved". (I never had to "evolve"; I've always supported equal rights.) Why does Saint Bernie get a pass but not Clinton?

 

[Trakar]

I liked Hillary first. Bernie came along and said some things I liked. I don't agree with him on many things but on some things I do. He advocates for a slightly higher minimum wage than Hillary. But that stands in contrast to the GOP field who don't even believe there should be a minimum wage.

Anyways, I never saw them as too far apart and I always liked Hillary more on issues like foreign policy. So it isn't a matter of me being seduced back or anything like that. I've always been on the fence with them and it could be a coin flip. I was going to vote Bernie in the primary but resolved to vote Hillary if she got the nomination.

No one has yet convinced me that she is so much worse than him on the issues I most care about.

Personally, I see almost no difference between Rubio and Hillary except the toning of the rhetoric they feed to their supporters. Rubio wants conservative controlled dollars and support, whereas Hillary wants conservative electoral support. They both actively strive to be the lessor evil option for Independents of mixed policy amalgams between both parties, but both depend on their party's base to turn out against the major evil that the other party's base represents, regardless of how they pander to the perceived values of the independent voter support they see as the easiest ticket to their personal ambitions.

I don't live in the middle, I just live at the opposite extreme from what might be expected by modern understandings of my party's political slant. Rubio is a younger male Hillary Republican candidate, and Hillary is an older female Rubio Democratic candidate.

 

[The Big Dog]

Why do you keep posting crap that has been utterly refuted? Does any contrary evidence ever cause you to change your mind, or at least to change your talking points?

Cover for Hillary's pro Iraq war vote, despite the fact it was virtually identical to the evidence bill attacked on in desert fox.

 

[varwoche]

Personally, I see almost no difference between Rubio and Hillary except the toning of the rhetoric they feed to their supporters. Rubio wants conservative controlled dollars and support, whereas Hillary wants conservative electoral support. They both actively strive to be the lessor evil option for Independents of mixed policy amalgams between both parties, but both depend on their party's base to turn out against the major evil that the other party's base represents, regardless of how they pander to the perceived values of the independent voter support they see as the easiest ticket to their personal ambitions.

I don't live in the middle, I just live at the opposite extreme from what might be expected by modern understandings of my party's political slant. Rubio is a younger male Hillary Republican candidate, and Hillary is an older female Rubio Democratic candidate.

Labels, labels and more labels. It's like you're an automated label generator.

By the way, you never explained why Nate Silver is "conservative lite establishment" or some such gibberish.

 

[Trakar]

Labels, labels and more labels. It's like you're an automated label generator.

By the way, you never explained why Nate Silver is "conservative lite establishment" or some such gibberish.

Not sure of what context I might have stated what you quote, that said, Nate Silver's analytics are largely based upon political establishment data and benchmarks, so saying that his analyses are biased toward establishment candidates and processes shouldn't be remarkable, he acknowledges this himself -

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...t-establishment-approved-candidate-on-record/

It’s become a running joke that I’m in the tank for Hillary Clinton. Whenever I’ve written anything that suggests Clinton has a very good chance of winning the Democratic presidential nomination, fans of the other Democratic candidates have let me hear it on email, Twitter and Reddit. I’ve written these pieces not because I’m rooting for Clinton or am in the pocket of “the corporations,”1 but because Clinton is in a strong position to win — a historically strong position.

On the eve of the second Democratic debate, taking place Saturday, here’s the latest evidence for that fact: Clinton has amassed a higher share of intra-party support before the Iowa caucuses than any presidential candidate2 since 1980, as far back as our data goes.

FiveThirtyEight tracks the endorsements of members of Congress and governors because they are highly correlated with the outcome of the primary. In the book “The Party Decides” — where the strong correlation between endorsements and primary outcome was clearly demonstrated — the authors point out that there are basically two types of primaries: Ones in which a single candidate wins the party over before Iowa (like in 2000 on both the Democratic and Republican sides) and ones in which most party actors stay on the sidelines until voting begins (like in 2008 on both sides). The former is very predictable; the latter is far more unpredictable and can produce a number of possible winners.

[aside] - correlation should not be mistaken for causation [/aside]

This is why they are called "establishment" candidates, and yes, in a two party system like we have, establishment candidates of one or the other party do win almost all high office national positions, which is why 538 focuses on establishment parameters and data. It isn't foolproof, but following the party money and establishment support generally gives a good outline of how a party is throwing its weight into the process.

This, however, doesn't accurately integrate or deal with situations where you have major non-establishment candidates who are gathering large amounts of money and populist support from outside the typical party establishment structure. Whether or not a non-establishment route will successfully overcome the establishment candidates is another story.

[aside 2]http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/marco-rubio-overrated-underrated-or-properly-rated/ 538 points out similarities between Hillary and Rubio [/aside 2]

 

[The_Animus]

The millions who voted Republican were likely always going to vote Republican anyway, regardless of the candidates. So they aren't a useful part of the equation.

The millions who didn't vote were likely not going to vote anyway, regardless of the candidates. So they aren't a useful part of the equation.

I don't see how voting for the most evil candidate or not voting at all makes them any less culpable for the result just because that was their inclination. Nor why those who are inclined to vote 3rd party should shoulder the entirety of the result.

Seems like a very bizarre way of looking at it.

Sorry that's narcissistic, head in the sand ignorance. Your example is skewed to support your opinion. So far no one with your view has honestly addressed the realistic difference in the "evils".

I'm done trying to convince self centered "skeptics" who refuse to acknowledge reality. When Cruz or Trump win and stock the supreme court with more Scalia's and Thomas's and RvW gets over turned, gay marriage gets over turned, etc etc. You guys can smugly feel good while everyone suffers the consequence of your ignorance.

As someone who will reluctantly vote for Hillary if she wins the nom, and who understands both your view and the other side I feel calling them narcissistic and ignorant is unfair.

Different time frames, different priorities, different perspectives, but both valid in their own way.

 

[The_Animus]

With this binary outlook, how does one tell the evil from the righteous? Black/white hats?

But seriously, in terms of LGBT rights -- the issue you pointed to if I interpret correctly -- how is Sanders any better than Clinton? They both "evolved". (I never had to "evolve"; I've always supported equal rights.) Why does Saint Bernie get a pass but not Clinton?

Many of Bernies positions have been consistent throughout his life. Regarding the evolved positions Bernie evolved because he thought it was right, not because polling told him it was the right time politically.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Sorry that's narcissistic,

To some people, exercising any sort of individual judgment is "narcissistic". Nevertheless this is a democracy and I'll vote as I see fit, no matter what anybody else thinks of it.

head in the sand ignorance.

Because you're so obviously right it's just impossible for anybody to disagree with you? They must not be understanding you! Do repeat yourself again, and be even ruder; it's bound to work eventually.

Your example is skewed to support your opinion.

Well, duh. It's my example, out of my own head. Why would I attempt an analogy that didn't illustrate my own point?

So far no one with your view has honestly addressed the realistic difference in the "evils".

I'm not claiming to represent a host of people "with my view". I speak for myself and only for myself.

I'm done trying to convince self centered "skeptics" who refuse to acknowledge reality.

Glad to hear it. I don't think it's self-centered of me to use my own judgment. I don't recall claiming to be "a skeptic". And I sincerely doubt you hold a monopoly on reality, political or otherwise.

When Cruz or Trump win

You think that's going to happen because I prefer Sanders to Clinton?

and stock the supreme court with more Scalia's and Thomas's

Are they going to rub out the current justices? They don't get replaced very frequently.

and RvW gets over turned,

Roe vs Wade happened before my birth. Abortion has been legal for my entire lifetime, despite eight years of Reagan, four years of Elder Bush, and eight years of Junior Bush. The threat to abortion rights isn't RvW being overturned, it's the multiplicity of state laws specifically designed to hinder provider operations and place undue burdens on patients. It's happening now, it doesn't need a hypothetical Evil Trump Madness Presidency to occur. If you really cared about abortion rights you'd know that already.

gay marriage gets over turned, etc etc.

It's much more difficult to undo a right once granted. Like with abortion, the real challenge will be the state laws masquerading as something else but with the intent of creating obstacles. In the case of gay marriage it will be "religious liberties". And again, it's happening now, it doesn't need a Republican president to start that fight, nor can a Democrat president end it.

You guys can smugly feel good while everyone suffers the consequence of your ignorance.

This same vitriolic sentiment has been directed at conscientious objectors. It amazes me when people get angry at others for using their own minds and their own judgments. You accuse me of narcissism when you are the one ordering other people to adopt your opinions, follow your tactics, and claiming to know how they feel.

 

[TragicMonkey]

With this binary outlook, how does one tell the evil from the righteous? Black/white hats?

But seriously, in terms of LGBT rights -- the issue you pointed to if I interpret correctly -- how is Sanders any better than Clinton? They both "evolved". (I never had to "evolve"; I've always supported equal rights.) Why does Saint Bernie get a pass but not Clinton?

Because if a focus group told Clinton tomorrow that she could surge ahead in the polls by turning against gay rights, I think she'd do it. She's a fair-weather friend to the gay. By contrast, Sanders clearly has no problem holding unpopular opinions, a rarity in politicians.